Citation Nr: 21008773 Decision Date: 02/18/21 Archive Date: 02/18/21 DOCKET NO. 15-04 121 DATE: February 18, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hand condition is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral wrist condition is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from September 1965 to July 1968. In June 2020, the Board remanded the issues below on appeal for further development, and the case has since been returned to the Board. The Board finds that the AOJ has not substantially complied with the remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hand condition is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral wrist condition is remanded. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) remanded these matters in June 2020 to, in pertinent part, obtain and associate with the electronic claims file pertinent private medical records, including records relating to treatment at Osteoporosis Center of Wheat Ridge and Lutheran Medical Center, as well as from Dr. R. R. and Dr. J. B.. Although one letter was sent to the Veteran to obtain authorization for the private records in July 2020, it does not appear that the regional office (RO) made more than one attempt to obtain the authorization from the Veteran. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). On remand, another attempt should be made to request a completed VA Form 21-4142 from the Veteran regarding authorization to obtain his private treatment records. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-4142 regarding authorization to obtain his private treatment records. Make two requests for the authorized records unless it is clear after the first request that a second request would be futile. 2. Readjudicate the appeal L. M. BARNARD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board R. A. Elliott II, Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.